tv [untitled] November 30, 2013 1:00am-1:31am PST
without the idea of being injured or run out because we can't afford the spaces if and when the new building is built and those rents are considerably more than what we're paying that community will be destroyed. they're maybe a few artists that can stay but i'm not one of them >> thank you. >> is there any further public comment on this item please bring up a card. >> (calling names) >> steve chair thank you, commissioners and happy holidays. let me just say that it's a cripple at the crutch.
one thing my grandfather told me was the young is his hair but the older is the strength. i'm also remind in 1967 we looked at a particle that was sold for $1.52 or 53 acres people's temple jim jones. the other day that happened. i'm reminded there's a lot of seniors that deserve a place to go to be entertained. they have facilities in the community to take care of seniors evidence and do a very good job. but i haven't seen the facility being used by the seniors and lo low-cost to forbode their families that come.
there are a few facilities in the area you have the bayview hunters point multiple purpose place. i hope that if you are able to include those that really did the job that they be allowed to have access so far as affordability to put on their fundraiser to teach the next generation that came behind them the mind is a terrible thing to waste. hopefully, you'll consider that in your up-coming future >> thank you very much everyone thank you for your complimentary
i want to make a comment. i'll call for your comments on the long rankle property plan. this is a plan and the purpose is to say for all the assets that the successor agency still is in control of what is their plan important gopgs up e.r. ever to sell for enforceable goings-on. there is no final plan once properties have been in particular prapts properties r that are transferred to the city for governmental purpose there's no plan after that. that's a collaboration between the agency because the agency has the experience and the resources to really fully understand the deposition of the assets in the community in the long run and the city department
or other authorities those assets are transferred to. so again, there's no final plan, you know, to transfer them to the city and a number of things could happen but that's not the purpose of this long-term plan. i want to open it up for commissioners. first any questions about the long-term property plan >> yeah. that i are they just, you know, wanted to make sure we should involve all the community when giving the properties back to the city and especially in the western edition. and in the other thing i have a question for you. in the jewish museum you have a right on the top he, you know, under the you know the separate
preschooler what are we talking about where the proceeds are going to >> you said the proceeds we're not getting anything. >> the reason it's zero ate an estimated value it's not been appraised but the reason we put zero when the jewish museum was built the development rights above the building were sold for the financing of the construction and then the particle below is not assessable there's nothing you can do but use it for storage. >> who sold the air rights above the museum. >> well, the successor agency this of the part - there was a number of development rights there was a challenge while the
jewish heritage was being constructed so the rights were sold as part of financing the construction to the nourish u jewish mutual. >> thank you before i close i want to recognize my colleague. >> thank you. >> any questions. >> i have a question on the community meeting of the western edition i believe i said november '89 can you give us a favor of the topics covered and the conversation. i want to make sure we're on the same page >> it was mr. landry called that meeting it had a board agenda.
it had part of the find it was to have a better rnd about the decision plan for the garage in the fillmore heritage particle. it was a meeting more broadly to discuss i think african-american businesses in the fillmore in general. it was a two hour meeting so profoundly three-quarters of that was spent on the topic and a third on the heritage center. i know that someone's from the association were there and is from supervisor london breeds office >> the topics in respect to the deposition of property we have jurisdiction over and those impacts you currently on the
ability of african-american businesses to continue sustaining their presence in the strict. i see those as straight and integrated issues that it troubles me with have an important topic i guess is not in the jurisdiction of this commission with respect to the historical issues but i would like to be able to answer some of those questions. it doesn't seem like the community has a basing placed to go to have the questions addressed. it's frustrating to hear you know be more than angst anger and not being able to respond directly. i don't want people to think we're not listening
>> again i don't want to speak for daniel landry but one the outcomes i replacement is the vay brown from supervisor london breed office you don't want the city - basically, the african-american businesses on fillmore has to costa mesa come from the community and an action plan not only for sustaining businesses and that action plan has to evolve organic from the community and be prepared to the city for implementation and that was kind of at least that was kind of where i thought - this was just one meeting there will b bes again daniel landry is here
and can say that again more about it. >> i have a thought think that, you know. i am not sure how much i agree with that conclusion. i'll focus on i think there are two separate issues and the reason why i haven't addressed this but we should spend time in the comedies on those topics there nodes to be another forum so those items can be addressed and not just vented. i don't want to take away from the real authorized to talk about the deposition of certainty property and property that haven't developed. so my suggestion would be to if we want to get involved in this
is to find a way to formulate the issues in a way that another body can be put together specifically to tackle that issue not only as a form for preventing but to have a solution to deny the problem what is it your exactly trying to solve is it about african-american businesses or the failing corridors the minority background. i think we should put together how in another dmiths or another body maybe it's at the research principal or something we need to getting get from the community but this is the place for that. we do have actual business with the deposition of property we have authority over and i want
people to have the right viewpoint and a unfortunately over the last year and a half this is the venue for many of those concerns and just to comment because we're cognizant about the jurisdiction we have appropriately under deposition law intervened by the way, of the example there are charges due for this particle and the brown's that are part of the commercial partly because of elevators bankruptcy the particle issue was parted of the mixed utilities development and this was a burden we're the property owner we pushed down those to the developer and so
on. because of a number of hurdle also certain payments were not getting made. so with the approval of the oversight board and through the approval the board we paid those fees which totaled $120,000. but those are ongoing we don't know if the developer and the sub lessees will be able to make those payment we've button it on the schedule but that's a subsidy but those tax dollars are going for that person. we'll have that going as a prosperity owner until the property is transferred to the city or the city can make those policy choices as well
>> i just have one comment. there's something between having that commission now just saying hopefully, the commission will come up with something and clearly it hadn't happened in the past. i think there needs to be another venue with authority to actually solve help with some of the issues >> the only comment i'll make is, you know, it sounds like time is of the essence and with the respect of the community in san francisco their undergoing tremendous change and hunter point and mission and if we wait too long and i say we the
of the private development so it's a very fluid thing so from the heritage center that one, again, is more contingent on the results of the bankruptcy process, whether a workout deal can be reached and if it's reached that transfer to the city could happen as soon as it could happen, but if the work ideal wasn't reached and the city decides to foreclose, then again, there would be a period of time, but, you know, an interim use would have to be put in to sell it as soon as possible. for the fillmore heritage center that's what we're proposing for the state right now for the plan. we're not talking about the
foreclose you to the state assuming the groundly stays in place so if that stays in place there's ongoing property management associated with that ground lease. assuming the state approves that plan. >> that actual transfer will come be before this body before it goes to the city, correct? >> i would assume so. this is all unchart ered territory, but i'm assuming before a transfer happens we'd bring it before you. >> the commission would have to approve the specific disposition so this is the umbrella, the overarching plan and the last item on the agenda
is a specific disposition for a ground lease, so it's part of the plan, but part of a specific disposition. >> let me try to answer what i think was your actual question. part b was there /stk*rb i -- i think what you're asking for is how are we formalizing the collaboration process with the city? we can approve disposition. once it's disposed of the to the city, right now we're not talking about what happened. so for example, there's plans, there's different models, we've seen some analysis, but all we're seeing is it will transfer as a single entity to the city and we have some assurances from the city as a family that they will keep it as a single entity and come up with some sort of model to manage it in the future. right now we don't know what
that model is and right now we don't have a formal way to collaborate with the city to say here's what we think you should do. we can say that, but right now it's just transferred and then the city /tkoz something. >> yeah. >> i think what's necessary outside of this process figuring out how to formalize our collaboration in a way that it become a regular part of our public process so it's not just where we dispose of assets and we have no idea what happens afterwards. >> yeah. >> i think we can do that, that's not part of this, not meant to be part of that process, but we can do that. >> absolutely. >> madam chair. >> yes. >> why can we as a commission then, make sure -- i know we have to approve this thing if this is a plan. why can we as a commission
then, ensure, and if it's possible that the community is involved. and i know that there's going to be a transfer later on to the city, but i just want to make sure that the community's recommendations are heard and that we listen to their recommendations and somehow input is there. is there a way we can approve this with the caveat that we have a proctor before? i feel that we're approving things. we're inheriting thing s and approving things, but now we have to do all this work, that we are forgetting that the community's involved. their families are impacted and what i'm hearing from the community is that we need to take some action and need to at
least reassure them that what they're saying is going to be thoughtfully discussed and thoughtfully included in whatever actions we do. >> two answers to your question. first one is the resolution 53, 2013 that we actually have to approve or not approve as the case may be today, did we get a ride line version of this? did we do that executive director? >> not yet. maybe we will. >> yes we will. let me finish the two parts to that question. the first part is the reason i ask the question is because the resolution was because there were some last minute text to say we strongly urge the city to include resident concerns and community process in their final disposition plans. that's part one. part two is getting back to kind of the commentary that i
just had that yes, i do think that we need -- we here, the commission, obviously here as the community is concerned, we have written commentary that was heard today and verbal commentary today and what we need to do is formalize again that collaboration with the city so we can create a public process around final disposition. i think people saw on their november 25 date, that date is sort of a soft dead /hraoeub. deadline. it says we know in the future what needs to happen. they're transferring to the city for government purpose, or we need to sell it. we've got between 12 to 14 months with first sort of soft date in there all the way out to 2025, i think was the final
date i saw on some of these documents to say we are going to dispose of this property and the city then has it and are going to do something with it. so we have all that time to have a public process for what that is. i don't think we need to encumber our conversation with that today because it's not part of the property management plan. it shouldn't be, i don't think. and i think we need to have a clean form so we can say we have a property management plan, how do we approach those varying cliffs in a way that makes sense and have that be a completely different discussion. >> i think i agree with president johnson that we should amend this, you know, and then want to make sure the community's properly involved in all the projects because we
get a very injustice in the past, especially investor relation and i don't think it should happen again. thank you. >> okay. i have an actual question for the property manager plan. i want to continue this conversation, but want to make sure we're not leaving out questions about the actual property management plan. this is the first one -- there were a couple of which i thinks from some of the draft plans that i wanted to bring some attention to and just ask sort of like what was the model and do we think the state will accept some of these things. the first one is there were properties that are now being planned to be transferred to the city for governmental use that were /orpblly going to be sold in the open market and previous drafts, first one
being building 218. originally the goal was to sell to private developer who would own and manage. tracy, can you just quickly discuss why the governmental use approach or transfer to the city approach is a better route? >> will, i think partly -- again, not arguing the governmental purpose. we're arguing kind of an enforceable obligation and we have an enforceable obligation that these were part of the community facilities broadly identified as community facilities in the phase two. we felt that was a stronger argument when we went back and looked again at the phase 2dda and the redevelopment plan which specifically kind of envisions that there are going to be these community facilities that have a public purpose. therefore they should -- we feel that's a strong argument to keep them in the city's --
transfer them to the city and artist studios and keeping the rents at cost. which the dda says rents can only be charged to cover expenses. and having the city take on that function is perhaps easier than enforcing that through a third-party. this is what we're arguing and it may not be something that the state accepts, but based on our understanding of what the community and the developer would like, this is our strongest argument for trying to get that, but the state could reject it and make us do something else.
>> i'm going to have to ask you ask staff for you question because i can't address members of the public. i'm sorry, yeah, i understand what you're saying, but that is how we do the procedure for these commission meetings. there's other types of forums for the types of conversation you're talking about. if there are questions that you want, you have to ask staff members to -- yeah, well, sorry. i'm sorry, i'm not trying to be facetious, but that is the tradition of commission meeting. i'm sorry, /kopbts. continue.
you finished your comment i think. the fillmore heritage center -- the garage portion, is that being sold with use restrictions? i believe it is. >> well, not so much use restriction, but i mean, it's for use of the garage, it would be sold as a garage. >> i think that the proceeds from the sale are restricted, yes. >> so the cdgb proceeds which i know are restricted, but is the garage parcel, are there any restrictions around the garage? does it need to continue to be attached to the commercial center parcel in the fillmore
area center. >> it can be sold separately. >> okay. is there something that we can change in the property management plan or when we make the determination that an asset is to be sold, does it just mean sell or can we add use restrictions to the selling for the disposition in the property management plan? >> well, i think that the whole point of doing all this is the state, you know, wants to get as much money as possible. and yes, it's true in this case the state wouldn't get any money because of the the cdbg restrictions, but in other cases where we brought properties before them, they've focused on are you getting -- even when it's restricted revenue, are you getting as much money as possible, and if there's not a use restriction on it, i think